• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Q'ns about retired airframe

Treetop Flyer said:
The A-5 had a single nose wheel
Click to expand...


Indeed, thank you. So it doesn't matter how heavy and large an aircraft is, if the launch is supposed to be by bridles, then the nose gear could be single-wheeled, right? In other words, the twin-wheeled nose gear is the feature of the bar/toe-launching aircraft (with one evident exception in the form of Phantom II)?
 
Max the Mad Russian said:
Gents,
One more thing about retired airplanes
Being in South Korea, Seoul, I've visited Korean war museum there and found the Stoof there. Grumman S2F as it was. I noticed that the throttle quadrant of this airplane is almost on the ceiling. Was it good enough to operate it? The museum staffmember, as usually (who else could be there to ask?), told me that this airplane could use no catapult to be launched off the old Brit carriers. True?
Click to expand...

Worked for a museum here in Dallas that had a US-2B Tracker ( BuNo 136431 ). The overhead quadrant was very easy to operate. The engine crank panel was on the left side, above the windshield. The E-2 / C-2 ended up with a very similar crank panel in the same spot.
 
Thanks Bendog. Right, same Grumman - similar things on similar airplanes.
A question about noted A-5 Vigie. I have read this North American design had some structural weakness and endure the stress of carrier landing poor enough. So how important is that stress the carrier-based airplane faces, from the standpoint of a lifespan of airframe? Blue Angels fly Legacy Hornets that are still able to endure 9Gs, but unable to fly from the decks...
 
I mean, how important the fatigue from arrested landings and cat shots in comparison to WR FLE? Given the Angels practice, it seems that former is the leading source of the fatigue...
 
You have oddly specific information requirements that have no use except to a nation state trying to create a naval aviation capability that isn’t as capable as the U.S. Navy yet. How convenient that the questions you ask about retired aircraft types result in answers that are still relevant and applicable to present-day engineering designs and naval operations.
 
Uh, right, I promissed not to ask sensitive guestions. Forget about it. Generally, I'd better get the answers here but two dozens of a Falnkers with each of them suffered at least two full engines change (a toll taken by the ramp takeoff) are not enough to be widely discussed:D:D
 
Your questions are mostly unclassified and not sensitive. That is why you get so many great answers from here. After all, these are retired and obsolete airframes, no?

But unclassified does not mean useless.
 
Yes, retired and obsolete :D Imagine you'll be able to return the Vikings, which are retired and obsolete, to a new life on the decks - how would such questions be rated then?:eek:
That arrested landing fatigue question was provoked by A-5 related tales of the problems with airplane's structural regidity detereorating much quicker due definitely to an arrested landings on a carriers. People wrote that is why North American have built no naval airplanes since then:), and no word about similar problems of Fury Bravo...

Ok, let me ask about retired program of commissioning people, the old STA (not STA-21). If I understand correctly, the appointees from the ranks in this programm might have gone through OCS having no degree to the date of entering, and then being commissioned, still having no degree. Their degree, as far as I understand, was a matter of subsequent education, just like for MARCADS/NAVCADS in AOCS for civilian "not-enough-college-time" guys before, but those old Cadets could not have been commissioned before obtaining the degree. Those from the ranks who went via old STA, oppositely, were commissioned immediately graduating OCS. Were they becoming an LDOs or full URL/RLs at that moment?
 
Nice news, thanks Brett. Full URL with no degree? England in America, to say the least...
Well, you know my position, it coincided with Brits' - officer hasn't to have a degree except s/he is some "duty" (AEDO, AMDO etc)
 
Look Brett, I think Swedish model where an officer, no matter which branch, inevitably had - last century - previous conscription term on duty - is right enough to be adopted even in large military forces. Though it depends on legislation norms surely...
 
Nobody is adopting that model. In the USN, it was an experiment that ultimately led to STA-21. It was never intended to become widespread.
 
Thanks Brett. Maybe once in 20-30 years it makes sence just to grab good E-people with leadership abilities to O pool. Before that it was the war every same 20-30 years that was the "social lift" from the ranks.
Anyway, thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top